Mr. Dave Anderson (Blaydon): Not only would Tony know, but his employer would know too, and that is where the real negligence lies. This has not gone on in ignorance but while employers knew that they were using a substance that was poisoning their work force.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is true that those men were negligently exposed. Part of the grievance is that men who were exposed from the age of 15 in the same way as Tony O'Brien are now unable to pursue compensation. The grievance is made worse because we know that until the House of Lords decision, compensation had been paid in such cases for 25 years. Those men carry a grievance and I say to the Minister that they feel they have been badly let down.
+++
Mr. Dave Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for initiating the debate. I also thank the Minister; as was mentioned earlier, she has a good track record in trying to address such issues - and certainly in helping to overturn the Barker ruling. That was most welcome to those who sadly came together to campaign about the problems of exposure to asbestos, a problem that has happened too frequently for well over a century.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for producing the letter from Mr. Rudd. It dispels many myths that have grown up around the subject debate; I shall return to it later. First, however, I want to ask how we got to this state.
As I said earlier, we have had 25 years of people having the right to compensation, which no one seemed to think was out of order or too expensive - except, of course, the employers and their insurers. I have no doubt that the lawyers in the Chamber and those outside will explain in great detail why it was the right thing to do. I am no lawyer, and I do not pretend to be one, but I have some simple questions, which will show that there has been negligence.
First and foremost, did people suffer? There is no doubt that they did - thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands suffered over the years. Did the employers know that people were suffering? Yes, they did. Did they know that the substance being used was poisonous? Yes, they did; they have known since 1892, when asbestos was declared to be a poisonous substance; and they have known since 1965, when they were told not to use it any more. However, people are still suffering.
Did employers do anything to alleviate the problem? To an extent, yes they did. Was it enough? Clearly, it was not. Were they liable? If we answered yes to the previous questions, I do not see how we can give any other answer than yes to that last question. Were they negligent? Clearly, they were. Were they criminally negligent? To my mind, they were.
It is clear that the people who are pushing this are the insurance lobby. Having pushed it this far, they are already gearing up to challenge what might be a way to resolve the matter. We are led to believe that the Scottish Parliament will try to address the legal situation in Scotland, making changes to the law that will allow people in Scotland to challenge the House of Lords ruling.
However, I have been advised that the insurance lobby is already talking of going for a judicial review. They are thinking of using the European human rights legislation - if it was not so serious, it would be funny. They speak of challenging the very remit of the Scottish Parliament - whether it has the constitutional authority to challenge a House of Lords ruling.
I would be very interested to hear the Minister answer those points about the position of the Scottish Parliament. Does she, and do the Government, support the attempts by the Scottish Parliament to take action to resolve the matter for Scottish people? If possible, will she help the Scottish Parliament to progress the matter despite the influence and the interference of the insurance lobby?
It is clear, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), that Ministers have seriously considered the matter. We have had a number of meetings since the matter was first raised, culminating a month ago with a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was very sympathetic to the case being put forward, but some of the advice that he might have been offered gives me cause for concern.
At that meeting, we were told by an adviser that as many as one person in five could be suffering with pleural plaques. I guess that that is about 12.5 million people; if we have to consider the needs of that many people, it is a very serious situation. I asked the adviser if he could provide me with more information. I am still waiting for it. Much more important, however, is the advice that we were given by Mr. Rudd, who is an expert in these matters. He says clearly that less than 1 per cent. of the general population have the problem, and that for nearly all of them it was the result of a history of exposure to asbestos. That is the key: although it is a big issue, it is nothing like as big as we are led to believe by the Prime Minister's adviser.
The other thing that worries me - it was brought out in the previous debate on this subject in this Chamber - is that some in the industry and some doctors say that it is nothing to worry about. They say that the real problem is people worrying about being ill, and that if people did not know that they had pleural plaques they would not worry and therefore would not be ill. However, if Mr. Rudd is correct, people who have been exposed to asbestos at work have a more than 1,000 times greater risk of contracting mesothelioma than the general population. Those people are right to be worried. We in this Chamber should be aware of that issue, and try seriously to put it right.
The last sentence of Mr. Rudd's letter gives another reason why people should be looked after properly. He says,
"This anxiety is real for all, and for some it has had a serious adverse effect on their quality of life."
If that is not an issue that should be addressed by the House, what is?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, I work closely with a group involved in the mesothelioma campaign - the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund in the North-East of England. The campaign is run mainly by widows of relatively young men who died in the prime of life. They support each other and raise funds to push forward research. It is clear that they should not have to do this, but they have no alternative. They believe that the only way to make the issue somehow bearable is to try to resolve it for themselves and their families.
This is about real people. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned John Scott, who is a UCATT official in the North-East of England. I had the great privilege of working with him for many years on Newcastle city council. He has spent a lifetime standing up for other people who work in some of the most dangerous occupations in the country in the building and construction industry. He is the sort of person that I came into Parliament to stand up for. If John Scott has pleural plaques, he should be looked after, as should people like him. We should do that now. Will the Minister listen carefully to what is being said today? The consultation period is welcome, but it needs to be short, precise and effective. We need action in the House: if the law needs changing, we should go ahead and do it.
Back to front page | House of Commons Contents
| Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT |